Pooh-poohing Pulitzer

View this document on Scribd


Advertisements

12 Responses to Pooh-poohing Pulitzer

  1. Cabby - AZ says:

    jbjd – This is a very interesting read and quite revealing! Thanks for posting the reference on CW. Hmmm, as usual Robert Gibbs opens his mouth and puts his big foot in it. The last of the three “sponsors”, Organizing for America, has been soliciting all over the country for the formation of neighborhood groups to, of course, back the Obama agenda. Could we say this is right up his alley with “community organizing” only on a national scale? Recently I checked (just for fun) to see if there was a group in my area in Arizona. I would have a choice of one of three within about eighty miles. If I were younger and more fit, it would be adventuresome to “infiltrate” to see what’s in the works.

    Cabby – AZ: Can you imagine, people who still ‘think’ BO has provided evidence he is a NBC keep referring to this on-line COLB! Bad enough they use an on-line image as proof of anything; but, adding insult to injury, Robert Gibbs already told them, this ‘information’ is not worth the paper it is written on! I keep telling those remaining ‘believers,’ you are the only people still insisting, BO is for real. His own people keep telling you, he is not, if only you knew how to listen! ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Miri says:

    Great analysis, as usual! No wonder Gibbs is so proud of his idea to put “the birth certificate” on the Internet. He’s applauded himself and taken credit for it at least 3 times that I know of. Thank you SO MUCH (and azgo) for determining that this is nothing more than a political advertisement. As campaign literature, it’s about as accurate and believable as any other campaign ads we see or read.

    Miri: You are welcome. (azgo, I still remember when you and I went back and forth with those footers several months ago now, like it was yesterday!) Know what I wish? People reading this post sent it to reporters, especially anyone in the room during that summer of 2009 presser. Get these reporters to ask Mr. Gibbs for what reason he directed press questions related to whether BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS; to campaign advertising paid for by the candidate. Then, ask Mr. Gibbs on what documentary basis Nancy Pelosi swore Mr. Obama was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS (in order to get state election officials in applicable states to print his name on general election ballots). ADMINISTRATOR

  3. song says:

    THis is off topic but it is a question:

    If a person has voluntarily through autobiographical information written or said one thing, and then in defense in a court uses the other argument, ie: Privacy, vs. non-privacy, or one truth, then another conflicting truth, it would seem to me that he/she could be estopped to prove either one or the other is “true” . To use any legal argument otherwise would not allow the truth to be known. It would seem that there cannot be contradictory claims where facts/truth, must be determined. obviously this approach is working for the Democrats, and well, most politicians.

    It would seem to me that if a person voluntarily gives autobiographical information, and another person in good faith accepts that material, then after the fact the material is A>Not true, then the burden of proof would be with the person who gave information voluntarily, not the person who accepted the information and it is in this grey area where the initial voluntary information given that predetermines that after the fact –no discovery of the information is allowed AFTER conflicting facts are established.

    So? venire contra factum proprium.

    How can a “public” official not be required to be public?

    Geez, I am not a lawyer, but?

    In another instance, if one thing is true, another thing cannot be true too if it is in conflict with the first statement.

    song: This is precisely the estoppel argument I have been raising since the summer of 2008, in the case of anyone trying to obtain through the court, any of BO’s records on file in HI. ADMINISTRATOR

    2009/03/22 at 21:56

    jbjd, since we are not allowed to see, what is on file,in Hawaii, as far as a birth certificate goes,can Hawaii be forced to authenticate the certificate Barry put on the internet? Does Hawaii have a duty, to report as fraudulent, the certificate that Barry posted on line, or are they breaking the law? It would seem to me, if they know it’s a fake, they have a duty to say so, and expose any fraud.

    bob: Hello, again. You are on the right track. Months ago, I contacted Andy Martin, then on his first round in HI courts to get access to BO’s HI records. His argument to breach the confidentiality in HI records law was that, BO was now a public citizen and those records were more like historical documents, anyway. I urged him to argue, instead, a kind of ‘unjust enrichment’ estoppel claim. That is, BO should not get to benefit from using those ‘records’ on line to ‘prove’ he is a NBC, even mis-labeling his HI Certification of Live Birth as his “Official Birth Certificate” and then be shielded from revealing the hard copies in the HI files by claims of privilege afforded under HI law. I will include this in the fraud complaint I am working on to submit to the HI AG (by residents of HI). Thanks! ADMINISTRATOR

    https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/apparently/comment-page-1/#comment-487

  4. song says:

    PS: Thank you for all you do.

    song: You are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. song says:

    Well, I was wondering when I heard you mention it. So I read and read and couldn’t find anything for awhile. I am a retired musician not a lawyer btw.

    So I found this: http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

    “For legal estoppel to operate, there usually must have been detrimental
    reliance by the person seeking to estop another.11 A showing of detrimental
    reliance is required because, until a person has relied on another’s prior
    action or representation, the action or representation has not caused any harm
    to others and thus there is no reason to estop the actor from asserting the truth
    or from rejecting the prior conduct.12”

    The implications are broad for such actions. Imagine advertising one thing, and another thing happening. So “detrimental reliance” is what causes a person to invoke estoppel, if a person has been mislead by one fact which is true and another which isn’t true, yet neither can be proven without one being true.

    Like with BP too?.

    song: Thank you so much for having faith that when I said ‘estoppel’ offered another ‘way to go’ for anyone seeking judicial access to any and all records on file with the HI DoH related to BO’s birth; I must know what I was talking about. Yes; you found a good description of the principle (which also includes estoppel/unjust enrichment). In short, the Plaintiff asks to see any records on file with the HI DoH related to BO’s birth. Defendant BO is estopped from raising the legal claim of confidentiality of these records, if they exist; because he already benefited by publishing (on FTS) a record he claimed was an official DoH birth record, so as to quash suspicions he was not a NBC. And voters relied on his representation to vote for his Electors (who they assumed would then vote for him). To meet standing, Plaintiff needs to be one of those people who voted for him but who would not have, now that Press Secretary Gibbs (and Bob Bauer) have confirmed that on-line paid political advertisement is the only documentary evidence of his HI birth. (Of course, being born in HI still failed to establish he is a NBC.) Here’s the problem, though. The Plaintiff would have to be someone uniquely situated.

    A perfect Plaintiff would be either an Elector in a state with a law requiring Electors to vote for the party nominee but who now, based on Mr. Gibbs’ admission BO’s COLB is a political ad; would have voted differently. Also, a delegate pledged to vote for BO in a vote binding state, that is, a state requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent on the floor of the Convention; but who would have switched sides had s/he known no documentary evidence established the candidate’s Constitutional eligibility for the job. (This might seem moot at this point but, since this situation presents a fact pattern highly likely to repeat itself in 2012, the court is likely to reject a motion to dismiss on mootness.) (I will examine this further later on; I am teaching today.) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. song says:

    I would think jbjd, that an elector could not do this until after the contract was enacted, which would be the oath administered to uphold the Constitution. It seems to me that this archaic law, wherever it came from, was formed by those who understood innately, that facts cannot be two things only when detrimental reliance on one of those facts requires that the other be estopped, whichever one that is. Otherwise both facts can be deemed as true.

    song: I am not sure I understand your dilemma. I think you are talking about the principle of ripeness, that is, when is there an actual case or controversy before the court. But several principles impact on this determination, such as whether the situation is likely to repeat itself; or where the Plaintiff in the first case anticipates becoming a Defendant in the second. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. song says:

    That could be, and I don’t know what ripeness is, except with my fruit trees jbjd?

    song: Cute. Ripeness is the principle in law that says, generally, the court cannot hear a case or controversy where these are predicated on facts and circumstances that are more potential than actual. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. song says:

    Not meant to be cute. True. I have though it through more, so?

    Ok then Ripeness would not apply, because Article 2 Section One, clearly notes that dual citizenship does not exist in perpetuity as a qualification for President. But an elector couldn’t challenge this until after the oath is administered because before then the person is NOT the President. Every other fact from birth certificate to school records is irrelavant because of the admission of dual citizenship by a President who took an oath to protect the Constitution that he is directly in conflict with, per the Article. So both facts can’t be true, because the dual citizenship clause ended.

    Anyway don’t want to bore you any longer. I appreciate your time and care and mindful work, ordered, measured and reasoned.

    your friend,
    song!

    The courts would merely need to reiterate that the Constitution did not include except for a limited time the exact issue that disqualifies the President.

    song: Now, I am totally confused. I thought we were talking about ripeness in the context Electors subject to seemingly mutually exclusive state law requirements. Ripeness in this context could be found even now, 2 (years) after the 2008 election and before the 2012 election. There is no prohibition found in the Constitution against a ‘dual citizen’ being President. And there is no documentary evidence BO is a dual citizen, either. Only a paid political advertisement indicating he could be. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. song says:

    It is so hard to talk on a blog. I see what you are saying, and you are obviously correct, in the context you are referring to. I wandered into other territory.

    I found this today– estoppel says that: “the law cannot be known until the facts are ascertained unless you allow some evidence to be of such nature as to not be contradicted and therefore it is that estoppels are allowed.”

    So it seems that estoppels exist to disallow ambiguities correct?

    I have read most of your responses at the CW site, and rarely post there. It seems that in this age of instant gratification many are not willing to take the cumbersome route, and not being a lawyer as I have already stated, I do not know all that much. I do however recognize through your determination to be precise and fair I can at least converse with you, but not at your level I know.

    _____________________now here are my thoughts about the Constitution

    It would seem from the minute amount I have learned, that the originators of the Constitution noted that there was a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, that “citizen” in an of itself was not to exist in perpetuity as a requirement for President. So the qualifications

    = Natural Born Citizen
    Citizen

    Since the Supreme Court has never ruled, this in and of itself sets up the condition for an elector after the execution of the Oath to the President Elect to show detrimental reliance for estoppel because both facts cannot be true. Although we know our President is a citizen, we do not know if our President is a Natural Born Citizen. In fact we do not know if any President is a Natural Born Citizen, but we do know that anything other than “natural born” citizen makes a
    person ineligible.

    The Constitution in and of itself, is clear that there is a difference between the two. So we know not what something is? But we do know that “citizen” isn’t enough to qualify for eligibility even though the ambiguity of the two terms seems to exist. We cannot get into the heads of the founders, but we can understand the times, and why the term to them would have been “self evident”, but in our day and age of legal wrangling, self-evident terms must no longer remain undefined. If History is one thing, it is not static, while we are making it.

    A Constitutional lawyer would know that such an Article was seemingly unclear, and the two terms remaining undefined by the courts leaves room for an open ended outcome, even though it was obvious that “Citizen” as a requirement was clearly noted Not to exist in perpetuity. Therefore, if the two terms remain unclear, then both exist in perpetuity, simultaneously, which would and is grounds for an elector to file for estoppel due to detrimental reliance on the eligibility of this or any person they cast their vote for for only 2 offices in the Land–President and Vice-President.

    . No court in the land will overturn an election, but, if a term is defined, future outcomes and elections will be determined by a ruling from the Court. Today– Article 2 Section 1 is an article wide enough to drive a truck through, but the intent of the founders was to narrow the highway for the word “citizen’ alone was included in the Article to clarify that “citizen” alone would not make a person eligible.

    So, Natural born was the adjective used to differentiate, all other “citizen” possibilities, therefore, “dual”, or “native”, or “non”, or, ( ) any other description in the set we know as “other than” natural born, would not be “natural born”. Inotherwords: 1=1, then 21 but if conditions arise where

    1=1 and 2=1 a ruling from the court through your idea of estoppel seems as though it could be the way to avoid a litigious future as this will not be the last time such a set of circumstances might occur

    your friend

    song!

    song: I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to estoppel. Cite, please. And what you think the Constitution means, means absolutely nothing insofar as 1) defining NBC, which is the purview of the judicial branch of governmet; and 2) in applying that definition in a meaningful way to the Electors, who the Constitution does not require to elect a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. song says:

    Ok then.

    Anyway, I don’t know if you have read this, but if you haven’t I do think you should as it involves cutting edge thinking for the 21st Century in regards to equity and your idea of estoppel. I found it tonight while searching for your request to Cite,

    http://legacy.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB_11_3_art3_Anenson.pdf

    song: Thank you for sending this law review article on equity. Again, this is the principle I proposed (beginning 2 (two) years ago now) could be applied to a motion to the court for permission to view any records on file with the HI DoH related to BO’s birth. That is, he should not benefit from displaying these ‘records’ publicly on FTS to establish he was born in HI without providing the ‘public’ (or the opposing political parties) with the opportunity to rebut that presentation. The only legal theory that has been tried thus far to obtain these records is an argument, these are no longer private records since BO is a public figure! ADMINISTRATOR

  11. […] (Note to readers: Bill Press is the ‘reporter’ who asked WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “Is there anything you can say that will make the Birthers go away?” Gibbs answered, “No; the God’s honest truth is, no.” Mr. Press followed up. “Are you gonna try?” Mr. Gibbs now referred the reporter to the President’s “birth certificate” posted on the internet. This time, Mr. Press did not follow up, evidently accepting Mr. Gibbs’ word that the birth certificate is posted on the internet; and that viewing this electronic image posted on the paid political on-line advertising campaign dubbed, “Fight the Smears,” an image visible only through a computer screen proves the President was born in HI. Even so, Mr. Press failed to detect that Mr. Gibbs only said this document proved Mr. Obama is a citizen, and not that he is a Natural Born Citizen. (Then again, in all fairness to Mr. Press, maybe he had no idea there is a Constitutional distinction between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen, that unique status of citizenship required to be President, anyway.) https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/pooh-poohing-pulitzer/) […]

  12. […] What if these same “reporters” verify any forthcoming records? (See Pooh-poohing Pulitzer) And recall that Annenberg Political Fact Check staffers with no expertise in document […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: